Bleepedy Bloops

Canada needs more people, that's pretty much what it comes down to. 3.49 people per square km does not a juggernaut economy make, sub-arctic tundra be damned.

Russia has entire cities above the arctic circle.

MarkG

Not when so many jobs are about to be automated away. America may be in a much worse position to deal with the rise of automation than Canada is, because it built a far more industrial economy, and pretty much all the industrial jobs that haven't been shipped to China will soon be done by robots.

scrubbedexpat091

If robots take over, how will people survive? I understand automation and robots are the future, but how will companies sell anything if people are not working?

The only thing I can come up with as to the difference between US and Canada is the US went independent of the UK and had a larger population from the start, and maybe the US has more liberal immigration back in the day that kept building the population.

Look at Australia, better weather but still far smaller population wise vs the US.

Granted they have a huge middle part that might not be the most popular place to live. But hey the US has major city's in the middle of deserts with hot weather, so people very clearly will live in dry, hot places.

Oink

It's even a more of a shithole than Canada.

scrubbedexpat091

I quite liked Sydney. I would prefer to live there vs Vancouver...

My list of countries to live:

US
Australia
Canada

Pulaski

That argument has been used repeatedly since the start of the industrial revolution more than 200 years ago. At each incremental step forward of technology, say every 30-40 years, there has been the same argument put forward - if machines replace workers, what will everyone do?

There have been relatively short periods of adjustment as the change in technology has been "digested" by economies, but at no point since the start of the industrial revolution has there been a permanent loss of jobs due to mechanization and improved technology. I am not aware of any basis to think it is different this time.

BristolUK

What no UK? Disgraceful. Your membership of BE should be terminated forthwith.

Shard

It's different this time. Full discussion in the Barbie.

Pulaski

Been there, and it was a pretty turgid argument going on the last time I looked.

The "it's different this time" argument has been tried every time subsequent to the first time. That argument has also been wrong every time, and it is this time too.

morpeth

The "its different this time" argument has been wrong consistently on this issue, party because of the dynamic nature of the economy with a reasonable level of economic freedom. The transition can be brutal- and with the more restrictions in place now on the economy ( the growth in regulation the past decades is astonishing)- and perhaps making transition harder.

scrubbedexpat091

The jobs of the future just seem too skilled for the masses. Those working low skill jobs a good % likely cannot do highly skilled jobs. We are just not all smart enough and its those group of folks who are most at risk.

In 20 years time we likely will not need truck drivers, cashiers, plane loaders etc and will there be enough low skill jobs left for people like me.

I am not so sure.

DaveLovesDee

I'm in a low-skilled job that may be supplanted by, but not replaced by technology for the same cost.

I work as event security, and as a door supervisor.

Pulaski

100 years ago stable hands were facing a bleak future but there was no such job as a plane loader. The future is full of surprises, including creating jobs that not only didn't exist, but nobody had even imagined.

Shard

You hit the nail on the head. It won't just affect 'people like you' but many office workers and professions too. Anything repetitive. With luck, governments will have introduced UBI (universal basic income) by that stage to support displaced workers.

BristolUK

You should be fine then. There are always openings.